[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fingering Type Size

From: Kieren Richard MacMillan
Subject: Re: Fingering Type Size
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:03:43 -0400

Hi, Carrick:

Well, that worked just great. Thanks a lot.

My pleasure!

I never would have guessed how the size increment divisions worked
without your help, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

It is counter-intuitive if you think of them literally as "divisions" -- in that case, it would be intuitive that 0 is zero (invisible), 1 (= 100%) is "full-size", and numbers in between are smaller than normal but bigger than invisible (e.g., 0.5 = 50% of normal size).

However, if you think of 1 as "full-size" and each number, positive or negative, as ONE STEP AWAY FROM NORMAL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SIGN (+1 = one step bigger, -1 = one step smaller), then this system suddenly "becomes intuitive". ;-)

Best wishes,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]